Predicting the Length of Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Disease Syndrome Using Machine Learning: The PIONEER Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The ability to predict a long duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) by clinicians is very limited. We assessed the value of machine learning (ML) for early prediction of the duration of MV > 14 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This is a development, testing, and external validation study using data from 1173 patients on MV ≥ 3 days with moderate-to-severe ARDS. We first developed and tested prediction models in 920 ARDS patients using relevant features captured at the time of moderate/severe ARDS diagnosis, at 24 h and 72 h after diagnosis with logistic regression, and Multilayer Perceptron, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest ML techniques. For external validation, we used an independent cohort of 253 patients on MV ≥ 3 days with moderate/severe ARDS. Results: A total of 441 patients (48%) from the derivation cohort (n = 920) and 100 patients (40%) from the validation cohort (n = 253) were mechanically ventilated for >14 days [median 14 days (IQR 8–25) vs. 13 days (IQR 7–21), respectively]. The best early prediction model was obtained with data collected at 72 h after moderate/severe ARDS diagnosis. Multilayer Perceptron risk modeling identified major prognostic factors for the duration of MV > 14 days, including PaO2/FiO2, PaCO2, pH, and positive end-expiratory pressure. Predictions of the duration of MV > 14 days showed modest discrimination [AUC 0.71 (95%CI 0.65–0.76)]. Conclusions: Prolonged MV duration in moderate/severe ARDS patients remains difficult to predict early even with ML techniques such as Multilayer Perceptron and using data at 72 h of diagnosis. More research is needed to identify markers for predicting the length of MV. This study was registered on 14 August 2023 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT NCT05993377).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".